Any reasonably diligent interrogation of Tasmania's Local Govt. Act will expose various options for councils to initiate change without going cap in hand asking say the Premier to legislatively facilitate change. However, should that be the chosen approach a way to approach it is canvased here.
Working on the assumption that the City of Launceston – that is the elected representatives – has or grants itself the 'wriggle room' to bring about change. They DO NOT need the approval of their GM/CEO but they DO need 'intestinal fortitude' to do what their constituents call upon them to do – if and when they are consulted in a meaningful way.
Given that for the past decade plus 'management' has been canvassing a perception that there are non-core elements and activities of Local Govt that it cannot, and should not, 'own and operate' somewhat curiously it has not been proactive in facilitating change in a meaningful way. Yes, there have been consultants employed but in every case their advice has been rejected – essentially by management.
Nonetheless, there are long term investments in these things and the city's constituency has indicated it wishes to protect those investments despite their cost to ratepayers, given the 'cultural dividends' they offer – but not always delivered upon. Sometimes ratepayer and others have been making ongoing 'investments' over generation upon generation and in multiple ways. As a measure, recently the QVMAG's collections were valued at something like $230/240 Million.
Consequently, these cultural 'operations' are resplendent in their riches– cultural centres, festivals, etc. Nonetheless, the cultural dividends delivered, and the performance outputs are apparently on the wane.
Given that on the evidence there is no imperative for 'local government' to "own and operate" cultural institutions, why does Launceston want to?
Local government does not own and operate hospitals, nor education operations so why should Launceston own and operate a museum contrary to the conventional practice of NOT doing so? Clearly, the elected representatives have demonstrated that they lack both the skills and the will to govern a cultural institution – here the QVMAG.
Against this background, in Launceston, clearly there is a clear and apparent need to reassess ratepayers' ongoing 'investment' in 'cultural operations' as the primary investors. It is especially so given the city's:
• Ratepayers facing an uncertain and disruptive economic future;
• Council's lack of appropriate domain knowledge and expertise in the cultural arena and the electoral process does not, and cannot, provide that class of personnel;
• Current precarious fiscal position in an uncertain economic environment;
• Background of its inability to deliver project outcomes on time and on budget;
• Fundamental status as a planning authority and civic administrator.
Always, local government is constrained by its constituents' capacity to pay for its aspirations.
The implication here is that such 'cost centres' – non income generating operations within councils – need to have their ownership held by their relative Communities of Ownership & Interest (COI) ideally via:
• As a State Government department devolving 'governance' to Trustees often with corporate and community sponsorship; or
• As standalone incorporated not-for-profit companies cum community cultural enterprises; and
• They do all this rather than entertain the folly the council itself governing and managing such large institutions alone and insulated against real world dynamics.
Speculatively, step by step, how might the option of say establishing a standalone, cultural operation/trust be advanced and achieved in Tasmania in a 21st C context by the State Govt.?
STEP 1: In open council deliberate upon the option to 'auspice change' and initiate a strategy to establish standalone, not-for-profit community culture entity/trust.
As a component of such a deliberation invite representations from:
• NorthernTasmania's cultural producers, cultural organisations, et al specifically targeting people in the kanamaluka Tamar, Esk catchments.
• Ratepayer groups and adjoining councils.
• The QVMAG's Communities of Ownership & Interest (COI)
STEP 2: Given that Council determines to proceed with the initiative, appoint and empower an independent 'commissioner' to:
• Establish an appropriate regional steering committee;• Receive and deliberate on representations from the community;
• Develop an appropriate model constitution process with the community and the State Govt;
• Seek and develop access arrangements to appropriate infrastructure;
• Develop and initiate an ongoing regional consultation process;
• Develop an appropriate and purposeful strategic plan in consultation with the State Govt. involving the community;
• Secure appropriate memorandums of understandings with regional councils, regional cultural organisations; and
• Develop a funding model in consultation with regional councils, funding agencies, sponsors, corporations et al.
STEP 3: Given that Council's ratepayers and the State Government are currently the primary funders of the city's cultural infrastructure, conduct referendum or surveys to seek community and government approval/endorsement for any standalone cultural entity/trust with access to 'public infrastructure' under equitable conditions.
STEP 4: Consistent with the above:
• Devolve ‘ownership’ of the QVMAG’s collections to the custody, care and legal ownership of the State Government; and/or• Where appropriate, in part, devolve ownership to an appropriate national collection and/or research entity in the case of scientific material; and
• Ensure that significant components of the collections are available to, and accessible to, regional scholars, researchers et al geographically located in the kanamaluka Tamar, Esk region.
Given that in 'lore' the collections are the 'intellectual and cultural property' of Tasmanians/Australians and thus belong to the wider community generally rather than the City of Launceston there needs to a comprehensive implementation and transitioning process put in place.
STEP 5: Consistent with the above:
• Collaboratively, State Govt. and relevant councils, appoint a 'transition Board of Governance' tasked to transition the museum, art gallery and other relevant 'operations' away their current status as a City of Launceston 'cost centre' into a standalone 'Community Cultural Enterprise'; and• Secure 'government funding, local and state' for a transitional period at approximately the current
• Do so over a defined transitional period – say up to three years;
Establish an appropriate 'membership base and structure' with citizen relationships, research associates
• Close the museum and art gallery to the public for a transitional period;
Initiate transitional program element in accord with available funding and sponsorships;
• Devolve ‘ownership’ of the QVMAG’s collections to the custody, care and legal ownership of the State Government; and/or other appropriate 'science collections'.
STEP 6: Consistent with the above and at the end of the designated transitional period (3 years?):
• Establish an appropriate entity 'to own and operate' the proposed 'trust' charged with the task of developing relationships with regional local governance and key regional cultural organisations;• Appoint a 'Board of Governance' in consultation with 'members', regional local governance and State Govt.in collaboration/cooperation with the State Governor;
• Establish the entity's Strategic & Marketing Plans;
• Appoint appropriate stasff, managers and service providers; and
Open the new 'institution' in its new modus operandi.
No comments:
Post a Comment